”The following records are excluded from the provisions of this chapter but may be disclosed by the custodian in his discretion, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law:”

…

”4. Data, records or information of a proprietary nature produced or collected by or for faculty or staff of public institutions of higher education, other than the institutions’ financial or administrative records, in the conduct of or as a result of study or research on medical, scientific, technical or scholarly issues, whether sponsored by the institution alone or in conjunction with a governmental body or a private concern, where such data, records or information has not been publicly released, published, copyrighted or patented.” (I’ve added the emphasis)

”The following records are excluded from the provisions of this chapter but may be disclosed by the custodian in his discretion, except where such disclosure is prohibited by law:”

There are 23 specified ways to have material or information considered for FOI
request exclusion as “proprietary” in Virginia.

§ 2.2-3705.7. Exclusions to application of chapter; records of specific public bodies and certain other limited exemptions

There are 29 ways to have material or information considered for FOI request
exclusion as records of a public body.

One exclusion here might be an awkward but serviceable fit with the Mann material held by the University of Virginia:

“10. Records containing information on the site specific location of rare, threatened, endangered or otherwise imperiled plant and animal species, natural communities, caves, and significant historic and archaeological sites if, in the opinion of the public body that has the responsibility for such information, disclosure of the information would jeopardize the continued existence or the integrity of the resource. This exemption shall not apply to requests from the owner of the land upon which the resource is located.”

“””””The Respondent [UVA] shall complete its supply of requested documents no later than 90 days after the date of this order and will supply them in electronic form.”””””

Also, that Consent Order said,

“””“D. 3. The Petitioners shall have 90 days after receipt of the Exempt Information to review it, negotiate with the Respondents, and, if they choose, file a petition with the Court for in camera review for determination as to whether the Respondent properly designated the records as Exempt Information as defined herein.””””

The timeline is that first UVA has 90 days give all info to ATI. Then when each piece of the UVA supplied info is given to ATI a different 90 day clock starts for ATI to review that piece of info and to negotiate with UVA about it and for petitions to the court to be filed if negotiation isn’t achieved between UVA and ATI.

OK, but I can foresee both ATI and UVA negotiation on each piece of info taking longer than the allowed 90 days. So I think both parties together will eventually jointly apply to the court for extension of the negotiation period.

John

]]>By: PhilJourdanhttps://climateaudit.org/2011/05/24/u-of-virginia-to-supply-foi-documents-under-seal/#comment-279067
Fri, 27 May 2011 19:31:39 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=13651#comment-279067No thank you. What should be and what is are often 2 different things.
]]>By: Jonathan Joneshttps://climateaudit.org/2011/05/24/u-of-virginia-to-supply-foi-documents-under-seal/#comment-279050
Fri, 27 May 2011 18:54:32 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=13651#comment-279050Re: PhilJourdan (May 27 09:20), I never claimed this was best practice, just that it is typical academic practice.

If you seriously believe that most universities securely dispose of old faculty laptops then I have a nice bridge that you might be interested in.

]]>By: mpaulhttps://climateaudit.org/2011/05/24/u-of-virginia-to-supply-foi-documents-under-seal/#comment-278986
Fri, 27 May 2011 16:29:21 +0000http://climateaudit.org/?p=13651#comment-278986R.S. Brown makes a very important point. UVa’s original response was that they could not find even a single copy of an email anywhere in the university system that was covered by the FOIA request. This is, on its face, an incredible claim. Email, by its very nature, leaves artifacts in multiple places. It defies all reason that copies of Mann’s emails could not be found in various archive files of recipients or even on the hard drives of recipient’s machines. Its very likely that UVa’s response was simply untrue.
]]>